EB-1A for software engineers: where 99 AAO appeals fell short
Thinking about EB-1A as a software engineer or engineer? Naming three criteria to claim is the easy part. Proving them is where petitions stall. We looked at 99 contested AAO appeal decisions for EB-1A petitioners classified in computer science (54) or engineering (45) to see where the evidence most often fell short.
A note on the data: AAO appeals are cases that were already denied once, so they skew heavily toward denials. The counts below are contested findings where the AAO said a criterion was or was not met. They are not approval odds.
## The criteria that most often fell short
| Criterion | Met | Not met |
|---|---|---|
| Original contributions of major significance | 1 | 44 |
| Lesser awards or prizes | 3 | 35 |
| Scholarly articles | 11 | 30 |
| High salary | 5 | 30 |
| Leading or critical role | 6 | 25 |
| Judging the work of others | 5 | 23 |
| Membership requiring outstanding achievement | 0 | 19 |
| Published material about you | 2 | 17 |
Takeaway: "original contributions" was claimed often and met in just 1 of 45 contested findings for this group.
## Why original contributions fails so often
The USCIS Policy Manual says funding, patents or publication alone do not show major significance. Evidence like widespread commentary, high citations, or significant attention or commercialization can.
Takeaway: show what changed in the field because of your work, with outside proof such as adoption, citations or revenue tied to it.
## Leading role and salary need comparison
Across our full dataset of AAO decisions, the most common tagged reasons were a role that was not shown to be leading (106 findings), a contribution not shown to be of major significance (93) and a salary not compared with others in the field (90). The Policy Manual says that for a critical role, what counts is the person's performance in the role.
Takeaway: pair your title with what you owned and its impact, and benchmark pay against people in your field and location.
## Three criteria is only step one
USCIS uses a two-step review from Kazarian v. USCIS. After counting criteria, the officer weighs all the evidence to decide whether you have "sustained national or international acclaim" and are among "that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor."
Takeaway: make every exhibit support one clear story of acclaim at the top of your field.
Check your self-petition fit free, no account needed: https://www.f-1careers.com/explorer?utm_source=community&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=eb1a_tech_criteria
Sources: F-1 Careers analysis of USCIS AAO non-precedent decisions (99 EB-1A decisions in computer science and engineering; 909 EB-1A decisions overall); USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2 (Extraordinary Ability); Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).
Education and strategy, not legal advice. Talk to a licensed immigration attorney about your situation.